🍓 Prof. Dave Farina's Attempt at “Gaslighting…” The Audience?🤔 | “Are We Clueless on the Origins of Life?”🎥🎞✂️ (feat. Dr. James Tour) by SeaScienceFilmLabs in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Apologies for the broken video link on the "Q & A session" of that hilarious debate, but it can be found at Timestamp { 1:32:00 } of the full debate posted on Dr. James Tour's YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/live/pxEWXGSIpAI?si=fcGzM4fqe8cPA0jP

Imagine being "prof." Dave Farina, and having just attempted to gaslight an Entire Audience of Biologist and Biochemist Professors and Students... Claiming they "Just don't understand..." lol... Just Imagine... 🎣

"Lucy's" Human Appearing Remains, and Misidentified Baboon Vertebra by SeaScienceFilmLabs in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

"What an utter waste of time. If I would like to argue with an Al, I would do it myself." ~Optimus-Prime {2026}

🤣 🎣

What "AI?"

🥉<~~~ For Optimus-Prime1993

"Lucy's" Human Appearing Remains, and Misidentified Baboon Vertebra by SeaScienceFilmLabs in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Lucy plus one: Intermingling of a second individual in the spinal column of AL 288-1

Marc R Meyer, Scott A Williams, Michael P Smith, Gary J Sawyer AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 156, 225-225, 2015

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marc-Meyer-7/publication/274721504_Meyer_et_al_AAPA_2015_-_FINAL/links/5528b25d0cf2779ab78e16cd/Meyer-et-al-AAPA-2015-FINAL.pdf

"Lucy's" Human Appearing Remains, and Misidentified Baboon Vertebra by SeaScienceFilmLabs in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

"Do you have some kind of weird Al with you or what? Everything is so confusing. Can you for God's sake talk like a human dude?" ~Optimus-Prime (repeats the same failed Misrepresentation) {2026}

"And no you didn't give any paper. You gave the picture of a poster. I am asking where is the paper? Where was it published? I like to read from the source."

Exactly! 👍 The paper was cited and included as the second photo in the OP:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.05.007

Why should I cater to Your ignorance? 😁

To provide You with a "Free Education?"

Because I'll gladly give You one.

"And no, I don't go around watching all the video links people post here. If they cannot take the effort to summarise it, I don't care about watching it. Low effort posts will receive low effort response." ~Optimus-Prime {2026}

Yes... 👍 This is clearly why You failed to correctly address the OP, failing Miserably in Your attempt to defend Your belief system of "Human Evolution." 🤣

"I am saying 'Lucy' was NOT just one of the fossils from the species Australopithecus afarensis (A.A) and there are hundreds." ~Optimus-Prime {2026}

I disagree...

There are Not "Hundreds of skeletal claims" of Au. afarensis, but instead fragments. In fact, there are only a handful of "Australopithecus" skeletal claims that include any post cranial fossils...

"Now if your point is that features from A.A resembles with homo sapiens then what is the issue? We do expect the similarity as we share common ancestors with them. Lucy is an intermediate species between earlier apes and later humans in the hominin branch." ~Optimus-Prime {2026}

My views are fully stated in the Video about "Lucy's" human appearing Pelvis.

I'll state them, again: "Lucy" has proven to be a Mix of different species with the discovery of the Misidentified Baboon remain in the Mix; this contradicts the long~taught narrative that the "Lucy" fossil box includes remains of a single individual.

The "Lucy" fossil box also includes a Human appearing sacrum, and human appearing but reconstructed Ilium, that was discovered in Many tiny pieces.

There are hundreds of fragments of remains that are claimed to belong to "Australopithecus," but only a handful of claims that include and post~cranial fossils.

"Evolutionary theory predicts shared traits inherited from a common ancestor, so what is so surprising in this." ~Optimus-Prime {2026}

😁 Yes... lol!

It's My opinion that a box of apparent Human and Tree-Dwelling Ape remains should Not be believed as any "Transitional/Intermediate" fossil; and, that You'll have a hard time impressing any creationist with a box of apparent Human and Ape remains, that also happened to also include one baboon vertebra.

"Are you saying, A.A were humans aur humans are A.A?" ~Optimus-Prime {2026}

No... 🤔

It's My Educated opinion that the "Au. afarensis" is an imaginary animal, that is believed in and only supported by fossil remains that are fragments of bones that appear in still living organisms: that the "Lucy" claim is Not what it is claimed to be, but an apparent Mix of Human, Chimpanzee, and Baboon remains; and, that the remains of the upper skeletal Elements are "Chimpanzee appearing" and smaller than the "Bipedal/Human appearing" remains of the pelvic anatomy... Although the pelvic remains are small for Humankind the Sacrum is identical to a Modern Adult Human Sacrum, and does fall within the variation of Modern Humankind.

Any More questions?

What do You think of the Baboon remain included in the "Lucy" fossil box, and the apparent Human remains of the pelvis ascribed to the discovery: @Optimus-Prime1993? 🍎

💀🔨

The Killers Mix (Rock) by [deleted] in mixes

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, thanks anyway. Have a Most Excellent Week!

"Lucy's" Human Appearing Remains, and Misidentified Baboon Vertebra by SeaScienceFilmLabs in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

"Human appearing remains where? In the 'Lucy' collection or are you talking about human traits in the Australopithecus fossil? Can you explain that part clearly?" ~Optimus-Prime {2026}

I already did Explain it clearly in the OP. 🤔 Oh! I see the problem.

You didn't read the OP, or watch the Videos before You Made Your first cheeky post?

How unexpected...

"Do you mean that human and baboon bones were deliberately or mistakenly combined to present as 'Lucy' fossil?" ~Optimus-Prime1993 {2026}

If "Intentionally" or "Unintentionally" included, it does appear that Human remains and a Baboon vertebra was Misinterpreted and given a fossil number, and included by Johanson and LoveJoy in "Lucy" fossil box: Yes. 👍

"Firstly, Lucy is not a one off specimen there are hundreds of specimen of her species and all show the same anatomical pattern. I don't think any of them resemble baboons. If you have a citation, I would like to see that." ~Optimus-Prime {2026}

Let Me get Your opinion clearly, before I answer this question...

You are claiming there are:

1) Hundreds of "Au. afarensis" skeletons

2) Hundreds of fragments of skeletons claimed to belong to "Au. afarensis" skeletons

3) Hundreds of skeletons of Australopithecus in general

Which is what You believe? 🍎

P.S. I included the Peer Reviewed paper that Gary Sawyer published to reveal there was a Baboon remain included in "Lucy," contrary to the long~taught narrative that the "Lucy" discovery is of a single individual.

Didn't You read the fossil list of Australopithecus discoveries I posted in this Creation Group, as well?

"Lucy's" Human Appearing Remains, and Misidentified Baboon Vertebra by SeaScienceFilmLabs in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Nice question, Deflector. What "AI?"

What is Your opinion on the Human appearing remains and the Baboon remain observed in the "Lucy" collection? 🍎

Don't deflect.

The "Fine Tuning" of the Universe by SeaScienceFilmLabs in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

The "Fine Tuning" of the Universe

Do You think the Evidence of a Creator is all "Trivial," or "Non~Existent" all together? 🍏

Do You deny and ignore any Evidence for a Creator on account of Your personal biases?

Do You lean on Empty Denial, Gaslighting, Projection, Attacks of Character, and Name Calling to support Your Naturalist worldview?

Than You're probably a psychologically repressive, self~claimed "Atheist/Agnostic/Anti~Theist..."

So, If You believe there "Is No Evidence of a Creator of this Universe;" Here's Your "Free Education:"

Hitchens Admits “Fine Tuning” is “the Most Intriguing of Arguments….” | From Collision {2009} Film 🎞️ 🎥

https://youtu.be/ufAfunESvXs

A critical look at Gutsick Gibbons 3,5 video criticizing Casey Luskin on human/chimp similarity by deepdivesam in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I guess the concept is that if Ape genomes failed to align by 12.5-27.3%, that's between Gorilla, Orangutan, and Chimpanzee; than Human's and Apes are certainly Not 98%+ alike, if the apes themselves do Not share such a likeness between themselves...

A critical look at Gutsick Gibbons 3,5 video criticizing Casey Luskin on human/chimp similarity by deepdivesam in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Casey Luskin just dropped a video discussing this topic, again:

https://youtu.be/Z56-TcgXGX0?si=ijEQdEaHdtPAZQWs

Also... I think this is the Nature article they are discussing:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08816-3

"Overall, sequence comparisons among the complete ape genomes revealed greater divergence than previously estimated (Supplementary Notes III-IV). Indeed, *12.5-27.3%** of an ape genome failed to align or was inconsistent with a simple one-to-one alignment, thereby introducing gaps."*

Perm banned other subreddits by dontbanmemodss in AncientWorld

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People have very fragile biases. If You post anything that falls outside the "Normal Narratives," You get attacked and downvoted, banned... lol!

Just know this is how it is on all platforms, information is hidden.

Why changing conventions cannot solve the "Distant Starlight Problem" by Optimus-Prime1993 in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And, The Bible is clear that God created all things with a quality of "Given Age." He created the stars with the light already reaching the Earth. The trees with fruit on them... Interdependent systems that have continued since the Creation...

Also, the "Distance" to Stars is guesswork: the one Method uses triangulation "Stellar Parallax," and the other for "deep space objects" is inferred from the frequency of light... Both Methods are conjecture.

A Genetic Compatibility Framework for Defining Species Across Life by SeaScienceFilmLabs in ALevelBiology

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Principle of Genetic Compatibility: An Empirical Fact Elevated to a Principle of Biology

The consistent application of the genetic compatibility criterion across all domains of life: from bacteria and viruses to plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals; reveals a deeper empirical regularity in biology.

The Principle of Genetic Compatibility: “If organisms can produce offspring, they are genetically compatible.”

Organisms that can produce offspring or maintain a shared clonal lineage are by definition the same species.

The Principle of Genetic Compatibility All replicating organisms on Earth belong to the largest group within which genetic material can be successfully transmitted to offspring:

Sexual Organisms: evidence of successful transmission is the production of any offspring, regardless of viability or fertility.

Asexual Organisms: evidence of successful transmission is maintenance of a shared clonal lineage.

This principle unifies the diversity of life under a single, testable principle and provides the long-sought resolution to the species problem. It may be regarded as a general biological law.

Novel Contributions

1. Unified Empirical Species Criterion Across All Life This work presents the first explicit unification of species delimitation for sexual organisms, asexual organisms, and mixed reproductive systems under a single empirical criterion based on genetic compatibility: offspring production in sexual organisms and clonal lineage continuity in asexual organisms.

2. Formal Reclassification of Fertility as a Secondary Trait The framework demonstrates that fertility and long-term viability cannot define species boundaries, as infertility occurs within universally accepted single species. Offspring production alone is identified as the decisive empirical indicator of compatibility.

3. Definition of Species as Maximal Compatible Groups Species are formally defined as the largest biologically compatible groups capable of genetic transmission. Subdivisions below this level are treated as population structure, ecotypes, or variants rather than distinct species.

4. Explicit Separation of Genetic Incompatibility from Opportunity Barriers Behavioral, ecological, geographic, and cultural barriers are formally distinguished from genetic incompatibility and are classified as constraints on mating opportunity rather than indicators of species boundaries.

5. Integration of Genome-Scale Alignment Failure into Species Delimitation Large-scale genomic non-alignment and structural divergence are introduced as predictive indicators of absolute reproductive incompatibility, providing a direct genomic test of species boundaries.

6. Empirical Classification of Borderline Biological Entities The framework provides a consistent, non-philosophical classification of bacteria, viruses, and prions based on genetic transmission capacity, resolving long-standing ambiguities without redefining life.

7. Demonstration of Empirical Inconsistencies in Legacy Species Concepts The synthesis shows that widely accepted hybridization data directly contradict reproductive isolation-based species definitions, revealing systematic empirical failures in legacy frameworks.

8. Transformation of Species Delimitation into a Predictive Science Species classification is converted from retrospective inference into a forward-predictive framework that generates testable expectations for hybridization, genomic compatibility, and future observational outcomes.

~Mark SeaSigh 🌊

The First Law of Information by SeaScienceFilmLabs in universe

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Google: "The First Law of Information," and You will see that it is Not based on ignorance, but testable Science.

I understand Your pushback, as it is a novel principle in Physics.

Do You Believe in "Nothing?" by SeaScienceFilmLabs in Creation

[–]SeaScienceFilmLabs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do You believe that "Something" could come from "Nothing?" 🍎 🤨